Did the U.S defeat Hitlers Germany?

1…1718192022

Comments

  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    Byrnzie wrote:
    True. The French navy at Yorktown it was that made the difference, if I'm not mistaken.
    The Spanish also provided some aid to the colonies in their uprising.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Byrnzie wrote:
    True. The French navy at Yorktown it was that made the difference, if I'm not mistaken.

    Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    redrock wrote:
    Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).

    Maybe that's why they've changed 'French fries' to 'Freedom fries' then? :confused:
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Maybe that's why they've changed 'French fries' to 'Freedom fries' then? :confused:

    Yeah.. but then they gave in again: From August this year...
    "French fries are back on the menu in the US House of Representatives, three years after the name was ditched in favour of "freedom fries".....The Washington Times newspaper contacted aides of the two congressmen behind the move to "freedom fries" to see if they could shed light on the change back.

    "We don't have a comment for your story," a spokeswoman for Republican representative Bob Ney told the newspaper.

    He he...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    redrock wrote:
    Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).

    I don't think there was any actual combat between French and British troops in this war, was there?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    Heineken Helen wrote:
    Lol, it's actually Belgian ...

    Thank god you know...

    ... never doubted you though...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofOQkeLnwRA
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I don't think there was any actual combat between French and British troops in this war, was there?

    There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    redrock wrote:
    There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.

    Cool ... You know more about this particular war than I do, I'm thinking.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Cool ... You know more about this particular war than I do, I'm thinking.

    Maybe... studied it at school (both American and French) and read a lot about it because I found it interesting. Alsd, I love history.... and... I saw the patriot (?) but there Mel Gibson won the independence for the US! :D
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    redrock wrote:
    Maybe... studied it at school (both American and French) and read a lot about it because I found it interesting.

    I've read a lot about WW-II, some about the U.S. civil war ... Very little about the Revolutionary War.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    redrock wrote:
    There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.
    Try again........Washington was quite dead by the American Civil War which began in 1861. The French and the Spanish both gave aid to the Colonial forces in the American Revolution. Naturally, France gave more since they were more of a continental (world) power at that time than Spain, which was in the twilight of empire by this time.

    The American Civil War was strictly between American combatants......the Confederate States (those that attempted to secede from the United States) did angle for aid from both Great Britain and France. Public outcry on the continent against slavery stirred up by the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in the seceding states, kept European involvment from becoming a reality.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    tybird wrote:
    Try again........Washington was quite dead by the American Civil War which began in 1861. The French and the Spanish both gave aid to the Colonial forces in the American Revolution. Naturally, France gave more since they were more of a continental (world) power at that time than Spain, which was in the twilight of empire by this time.

    The American Civil War was strictly between American combatants......the Confederate States (those that attempted to secede from the United States) did angle for aid from both Great Britain and France. Public outcry on the continent against slavery stirred up by the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in the seceding states, kept European involvment from becoming a reality.

    Sorry.. correct term revolutionary war.. where the french fought with the americans against the british... Battle of yorktown being the climax.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    redrock wrote:
    Sorry.. correct term revolutionary war.. where the french fought with the americans against the british... Battle of yorktown being the climax.
    That's the one......General Cornwallis gave up the fight after he got boxed in between the American and French forces. It was a French fleet that prevented his escape via the sea.

    We, the United States, also owe the French (Napoleon, this time) for that sweetheart of deal called the Louisiana Purchase.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Man, the French ... What happened?
    ;)
  • Songburst
    Songburst Posts: 1,195
    sponger wrote:
    That's because 99% of credible authorities consider Russia to be a part of the allies. As I said, those credible authorities aren't considering the very real possibility that Russia would've had its way with the UK after it was done enslaving all of Europe.

    If you want to say that the UK could've fought off both the nazis and the russians, then that's a different story. Is that what you're saying?

    You do know that Russia hardly had an army left at the end of the war, don't you? It would have been very difficult for them to conquer Belgium, let alone Europe with what was left. They may have been able to build an army over the next 10 years and try something, but even that would have been a daunting task for them. My wife's grandfather was a German POW in Russia from '45 to '53 and he was one of the 1% or so who survived that ordeal. He said that he and the other POWs were forced to maintain what little equipment that the Russians had left and he said the little equipment that they had was junk. The Russians approach of overtaking the Germans by shovelling more casualties onto the fire, only works for so long. The Russians took a chunk of Finland in '39 with the same "win-by-losses" approach. The Finns out-killed the Russians 20-1, but the sheer volume of death that the Russian were willing to accept finally overwhelmed the Finns until they had to give up a major part of their country.

    That said, it is stupid to minimize the US's contribution to WW2. They were a huge part in ending the war. However, if Germany had kept it's peace treaty with Russia, it would have taken many more years (some argue 15) and many more Allied losses to defeat the Nazis.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    tybird wrote:

    We, the United States, also owe the French (Napoleon, this time) for that sweetheart of deal called the Louisiana Purchase.

    Good ol' Napoleon!!! Another one who 'over extended' just a tiny bit!
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    redrock wrote:
    Good ol' Napoleon!!! Another one who 'over extended' just a tiny bit!
    just a wee bit there.......another great leader who always talked about history, but forgot about it when he invaded Russia....that damn Nelson guy was also an pain in the arse.

    So, I guess one could argue that the U.S. helped Napoleon to finance his military adventures.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    tybird wrote:
    just a wee bit there.......another great leader who always talked about history, but forgot about it when he invaded Russia....that damn Nelson guy was also an pain in the arse.

    So, I guess one could argue that the U.S. helped Napoleon to finance his military adventures.

    Until that damn Wellington and allied forces crushed him at Waterloo!!!

    Funny Napoleon.. a hero and a fool.....
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    redrock wrote:
    Until that damn Wellington and allied forces crushed him at Waterloo!!!

    Funny Napoleon.. a hero and a fool.....
    Yes........a very interesting (and very popular...it's amazing how much research literature exists on nearly every aspect of the man) study........have actually visited two major museum exhibits on him in the last decade or so......brillant, yet flawed. Waterloo was only the final, final defeat.....Leipzig was the first defeat that sent him into exile. Nelson defeated his naval forces twice....before he died.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    tybird wrote:
    Yes........a very interesting (and very popular...it's amazing how much research literature exists on nearly every aspect of the man) study........

    Yes, he is very popular for some reason. Was it his 'vision'? His strategies (highs and lows!). There are greater and more charismatic 'great commanders' than him. Personally, I'd take Alexander over Napoleon any day (but that's my opinion!).

Categories